HARVEER SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1014 · Decided: 15-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1014                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
HARVEER SINGH & ANR.
v.
STATE OF U.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 505 of 2019)
MARCH 15, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Revision:
Revision petition – Ex parte dismissal of the criminal revision,
by the High Court – Interference with – Held: High Court dismissed
the revision without assigning any reason – Such disposal cannot
be countenanced – High Court should have applied its judicial
mind to the factual and legal aspects in the case and then passed
appropriate orders either for upholding or setting aside the
conviction but the same was not done – Matter remanded to the
High Court for deciding the revision petition afresh.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court while dismissing the revision did
not assign any reason. The disposal of the revision in this manner
cannot be countenanced. The least that was expected of was that
the High Court would apply its judicial mind to the factual and
legal aspects arising in the case and then pass appropriate orders
either for upholding the conviction or acquitting the appellants,
as the case may be. The High Court failed to do so. The impugned
order is set aside. The case is remanded to the High Court for
deciding the revision petition afresh on merits in accordance with
law. [Paras 11,12,14][1016-C, D-F]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.505 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.12.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl. Revision No.2870 of 2009.
D.S. Kauntae, Keshav Ranjan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Vishnu Shankar Jain, Adv. for the Respondent.
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 1014
1014
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1015
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 09.12.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Criminal Revision No.2870 of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed
the said revision ex parte filed by the appellants herein.
3. The appeal involves a short point as is clear from the facts
stated infra.
4. The appellants along with other two accused were prosecuted
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504 and 506 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”)  in
Criminal Case No. 247/1 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate,  Mathura.
However,  by order dated  01.05.2008, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted
all the accused persons including the appellants herein from all the charges.
5. The State felt aggrieved and filed appeal being  Criminal Appeal
No.81/2008 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mathura.
By order dated  20.07.2009, the Appellate Court while partly allowing
the appeal upheld  the order of the order of the Judicial Magistrate in
respect of other two accused and convicted the appellants herein for the
offences punishable under Sections 323,324 and 452 IPC and sentenced
them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs 500/
-  each under Section 323 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment with fine
of Rs.500/- each under Section 324 IPC and one year rigorous
imprisonment under Section 452 IPC.  In the event of not paying the
fine, the appellants(accused) shall  further undergo three months each
additional imprisonment.  All these punishments were to run concurrently.
6. The appellants felt aggrieved by the order of the Appellate
Court filed criminal revision before the High Court of Allahabad. At the
time of hearing, none appeared for the appellants.  By impugned order,
the High Court dismissed the revision ex parte, which has given rise to
filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the
appellants(accused) in this Court.
7. So,  the short question, which arises for consideration in this
appeal, is whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the
appellants’ revision.
HARVEER SINGH & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1016                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remand
the case to the High Court for deciding the revision afresh on merits in
accordance with law.
10. The impugned order reads as under :
“3. Having gone through the record, I do not find any
manifest error or otherwise illegality, procedural or
otherwise,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.